The Quantum-Classical Transition Presented to the S. Daniel Abraham Honors Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Completion of the Program Stern College for Women Yeshiva University August 31, 2010 Julie Gilbert Mentor: Professor Lea Ferreira dos Santos, Physics 1 Abstract Since the days of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, classical mechanics has been used to describe the macroscopic world in which we live. From the projectile acceleration of a baseball to the elliptical orbit of Mars, classical mechanics quite accurately predicts the behavior of most physical phenomena we encounter on a daily basis. However, classical mechanics fails to describe the microscopic, atomic, and sub-atomic domains, where particles have both particle-like and wave-like properties. In this domain, quantum mechanics is needed to accurately describe the system. When the particles behave like waves, they may exist in a coherent quantum superposition of different states and exhibit interference. On the contrary, on the classical level, macroscopic quantum superpositions are very difficult to observe. My goal in this thesis is to study the transition from the quantum domain to the classical domain. Why, if quantum superpositions are such an integral part of our world on the microscopic level, do they all but disappear in the macroscopic world which we experience? What defines the border between the quantum and the classical? In the mid-20th century, H. Dieter Zeh pointed out that realistic systems are never isolated and always interact with their environments. Zeh suggested that this interaction could explain the fragility of quantum states and the disappearance of coherent quantum superpositions [1]. Wojiech Zureck advanced this theory, introducing the term “decoherence” to describe the loss of coherence and therefore the quantum-classical transition [2]. In this thesis, I will examine the theory of decoherence, as well as the criticisms it generated. 2 1. Introduction 푑 The Schrödinger equation,푖ℏ Ψ = 퐻 Ψ , describes the dynamics of a quantum system. It 푑푡 is a deterministic equation. It says that given the initial state (wave function), |Ψ 0 , and the Hamiltonian, 퐻, of the system, the state at a future time can always be obtained. This equation is at the core of the formalism of quantum mechanics. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanics provides an extremely accurate description of the behavior of objects at the microscopic scale. However, there is a fundamental question associated with the Schrödinger equation and the formalism of quantum mechanics. When applied to a microscopic or a macroscopic system, the equation evolves the initial state, |Ψ (0) , into a superposition of different states. Nothing in the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics prevents these superpositions. In microscopic systems, superpositions are indirectly observed through interferences. However, superpositions are very hard to observe in the macroscopic world. Furthermore, when a measurement is performed on a system, the superpositions disappear and we have always a single outcome. This is known as the “collapse of the wave function”. Both the rareness of macroscopic superpositions and the measurement process are not described by the Schrödinger equation. Why is there a discrepancy between what is predicted by the Schrödinger equation and what we observe? The Copenhagen interpretation, suggested by Niels Bohr and others, asserts that there exists a distinct, yet mobile, boundary between the quantum and the classical. According to Bohr, the quantum-classical boundary exists separately from the formalism of quantum mechanics, so that quantum calculations cannot incorporate a classical measuring apparatus or any classical object, in general. It is therefore impossible that the wave function 3 collapse will emerge from the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics or that macroscopic superpositions will be observed [3]. Experimental advances since Bohr challenge the existence of a defined limit between quantum and classical. Whereas we usually associate quantum with microscopic, the cryogenic version of the Weber bar, which is a gravity-wave detector cooled to 10-3 K and of a couple of meters long, must be considered as a quantum harmonic oscillator because it deals with tiny oscillations [4]. Within the category of superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs), which are devices based on superconducting Josephson junctions and used to measure extremely weak signals, a macroscopic superposition of two magnetic-flux states - one corresponding to a few microamperes of current flowing clockwise, the other corresponding to the same amount of current flowing anticlockwise - was observed one decade ago [5]. At the present, much more advanced research is expanding the frontiers of the quantum-classical boundary [6]. Is there a defined physical quantum-classical boundary? And, if superpositions exist throughout the universe, why are they not easily observed? Though the superpositions exist, the process of measurement somehow selects, or at least appears to select, a single outcome. Why does one state become observed over the other possibilities? The decoherence approach, initiated by Zeh [1] and further developed by Zurek [2], attempts to solve the problem of infrequent macroscopic superpositions by suggesting that macroscopic systems are never completely isolated from their environments. Schrödinger’s equation describes a closed system that cannot exist in our universe. According to the decoherence program, the loss of quantum coherence from the system to its surroundings leads to the emergence of classical properties [1,2,6]. It is important to note, however, that contrary to its original goal, 4 the decoherence approach was not able to solve the measurement problem. The description of the collapse of the wave function remains a main topic of debate in foundations of quantum mechanics [6,7,8]. In short, the decoherence approach provides a good description of the effects of the interaction of a system with its surroundings, it justifies the rareness of macroscopic superpositions, it has been tested experimentally, but it does not explain the collapse of the wave function. 2. Wave-particle duality and Quantum Superpositions Particles / Double-slit experiment: On the macroscopic level, it is simple to predict what will occur when two cars crash, when a baseball is thrown, or even how long it will take for an explosion that originates on the Sun to be seen on Earth. In classical mechanics, objects are taken to act as particles, and as such, the physical properties of an object can be described accurately with nearly complete certainty. Newtonian mechanics deals with the behavior of the particle. The double-slit experiment is often used to illustrate the parameters of the particle-like nature of matter and to compare them with those that define the wave-like nature of matter and quantum behavior [9]. The experiment is set up by placing a moving gun some distance away from a wall with two slits. Behind the wall, there is a backstop and a movable detector which collects the bullets where they hit the backstop (See Figure 1). The experiment measures the probability of arrival of each (indestructible) bullet. In this (somewhat idealized) experiment, the bullets are shot at a slow rate, so that exactly one bullet arrives at the detector at a given moment in time. Each bullet that reaches the detector is found to have passed through either slit 1 or slit 2. When hole 2 is covered, the 5 bullets can only pass through hole 1, and we get curve P1. When hole 1 is covered, we get curve P2. When both holes are open, the probability that a bullet will pass through either of the slits is the sum of the probability that it will pass through slit 1 and the probability that it will pass through slit 2, and can be modeled using the curve P12 in Figure 1 [9]. Figure 1 [9]: Interference experiment with bullets Waves / Double-slit experiment: According to classical mechanics, water, light, and sound behave like waves. The wave-like nature of matter is shown by performing the double-slit experiment using water waves. The experiment is set up in the same way, except that gun shooting bullets is replaced by a wave source and the entire system is placed in a shallow pool of water. The experiment is performed by a motor, which gently moves the wave source up and down to form a circle of waves around the source (See Figure 2). The detector is set to measure the intensity of the waves, a property which is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the waves, and directly proportional to the energy transmitted by the waves. 6 Figure 2 [9]: Interference experiment with water waves. Unlike the bullets, which arrive at the detector one-by-one, the height of the waves as they reach the detector varies continuously, and therefore intensities of an infinite number of values within a range of values are measured. When both slits are open and intensity of the waves as they reach the detector is plotte d against the distance from the center of the backstop where the waves hit, the resulting plot, I12, shows a pattern of constructive and deconstructive addition of waves, known as interference [9]. Quantum mechanics / Electrons / Double-slit experiment: The conceptual basis of the wave- particle duality which is observed on the quantum scale is exemplified by performing the double-slit experiment with microscopic particles, such as electrons. The experiment is set up by placing an electron gun in front of a wall with two holes. The electron gun consists of a heated tungsten wire at a negative voltage with respect to a surrounding metal box. The box contains a hole through which some of the accelerated electrons from the wire will pass through. The detector in this experiment is an electron multiplier which is placed at the backstop and connected to a loudspeaker, which will identify when an electron hits the screen (See Figure 3).